The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1887-09-28
Sensational Will Case.

A Burlington dispatch says: " One of the
most important eases tried in Vermont was
begun in the county court September 2lst
In November last Vernon p. Noyes a we'll
known banker of this city, died, leaving an
estate which is estimated at S1,00O,000 or
over. He also left a will, bequeathing Mrs
Mary M. Brown, his sister, $4,000 and
making his brother, Julius NJ. Noyes of
New York, residuary legatee, thus utterly
discarding Mrs. Laura w. Burton, another
sister. The will was presented for probate
in due form and admitted, whereupon Mrs.
Burton appealed to the county court from
the decision of the probate court. Suisse
quently the appellant died, and now the
will is being contested by her son, ID. \.
Burton, as the administrator of her estate.
To thoroughly understand the case it will
be necessary to go back to 1915, when Da-
vid p. Noyes, father of Vernon and julius,
died, leaving an estate of S2i0,000, which
had been willed to the two sons, but which
they promised to divide equally with two
sisters, Mrs. Burton and Mrs. Brown. This
obligation was not fulfilled, it is claimed,
and during Vernon's declining years he was
prevailed upon by o. A. Burton to cut off
the latter's wife, who had separated from
him and begun proceedings which resulted
in the most sensational divorce case ever
tried in Vermont The contestant claims
that, if it had not been for this influence of
Vernon Noyes against his mother he would
have come in for third interest in the es-
tate. He charges undue influence. The
most astonishing claim, however, is that
there was will drawn in 1885, which gave
the contestant a share in the estate and
which was intrusted to Colonel LEG. b. Can
non. The contestant produced q. Nj. De-
laney, who was one of Vernon Noyes' two
intimate friends, the other being his brother
in-law, o. A. Burton. Delaney claims to
have seen and read the will of 1885, as well
as two others, which were in Vernon Noyes'
safe. Julius Noyes testified that there We're
two wills, the provisions of which did not
vary materially, drawn in 1873 and in 1881
respectively, but denies the existence of
the alleged will drawn in 1885. The con-
testant charged that Julius went to his
brothers bank Immediately after the latter's
death and distracted the last will, preserv-
ing the two which left him the bulk of the
estate, and both of which he produced in
court. On Thursday the court ruled out all
evidence relating to a third will till it was
established the same as the other wills
Thereupon the counsel for the contestant
gave notice that in view of the ruling of the
court they did not care to submit the ques-
ton either as to revocation or undue intlu-
ence to the jury and would take the benefit
of their exceptions in the supreme court.
The court accordingly directed verdict
establishing the will, to which exceptions
We're taken and the case now goes to the
supreme court. Probably another influence
which determined this action on the part of
the contestants counsel was the production
OF certified copy from the war department
at Washington showing that Delaney, the
contestants principal witness, had been
convicted Of fraudulent recruiting and other
crimes in Augusta, Maine, during the war
and was sentenced to serve ten years in the
Concord state prison, To pay fine of S45,OO
and to remain in prison till the fine was
paid, but was pardoned by general order
of the prpSilaut In lSGI